In 2022, the average annual expenditures for all consumer units in the United States increased by 9, reaching $72,967. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers rose by 8, and average income before taxes grew by 7.5. Cooking and baking are the most popular hobbies in the US, with 41% of respondents enjoying these activities. A survey of 1,000 Americans across different income levels and generations revealed that Americans spend the most on housing, followed by groceries, utilities, and health insurance. Younger Gen Xers (ages 35-44) spend the most on housing and groceries, while older individuals spend less on hobbies and recreational spending.
The mean annual expenditure on toys, hobbies, and playground equipment per consumer unit in the United States in 2022 was the highest among the 35 to 44 age group. The average American household spends almost $3,000 a year on entertainment costs, with the 35 to 44 age group being the highest spender on this category. Nearly 40 of consumers spend between $11–$30 per month on hobby-related purchases. Music is currently the most popular hobby in 2021, followed by food. In 2022, the country’s average expenditure on toys, games, arts and crafts, and tricycles amounted to about 160 U.S. dollars per consumer unit.
Millennials aged 18-34 have already spent more money than retirees throughout their lifetime. The increase in real PCE reflected a.9 jump in spending on goods in July, with a big contributor to that rise being a hike in spending on games, toys, and hobbies. To understand how Americans are spending their money on hobbies and recreational spending, it is recommended to allocate 5-10% of one’s take-home pay for hobbies and recreational spending.
📹 Federal Spending, Debt, and Deficits
Governments spend and borrow money just like people do. But it’s a little more complicated. Is it bad for a government to be in …
How to do the 50/30/20 rule?
The 50-30-20 budget rule is a financial management tool that suggests that individuals should spend up to 50% of their after-tax income on essential needs and obligations, with the remaining half dedicated to savings and 30 for non-essential items. This rule aims to balance paying for necessities with saving for emergencies and retirement. To follow the rule, individuals can set up automatic deposits, use automatic payments, and track income changes. If spending more than 50 on needs, it may be necessary to cut down on wants or downsize lifestyles, such as downsizing to a smaller home or car, carpooling, or cooking at home.
What are the top 3 hobbies?
Individuals often engage in a variety of leisure activities, including reading, sports, gardening, cooking, and traveling. The activities of reading, sports, gardening, cooking, and traveling are all enjoyable and fulfilling, and can be pursued in a variety of ways. Engaging in these hobbies can provide a sense of fulfillment and foster connections with others.
What do Americans buy the most?
A survey by Slickdeals reveals that 64% of U. S. adults reported an increase in their impulse spending in 2022, with an average person spending $314 per month on such purchases. The survey, which surveyed 2, 000 American shoppers, found that three in four respondents said most of their purchases were spontaneous, a significant increase from 59 in the previous year. The survey, commissioned by Slickdeals and conducted by OnePoll, aimed to examine impulse spending habits compared to previous surveys.
What is the 40/30/20 rule?
The 40/30/20/10 rule is a budgeting framework that divides after-tax income into categories for spending, with 40 for needs and 30 for giving back. The largest category is day-to-day needs, such as housing, utilities, transportation, healthcare, and groceries. This approach can be helpful for those with discretionary expenses, but the exact formula may not be ideal for everyone. The 50/30/20 rule is a popular budgeting framework.
What does America spend the most money on?
In 2023, the majority of federal spending was allocated to major entitlement programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. These programs collectively accounted for 50% of total federal spending, a figure that is projected to exceed the combined spending on other national priorities, such as national defense.
What is a good amount of fun money?
The 50/30/20 rule is a budgeting method that suggests that no more than 50% of income should be allocated to needs, 30 for wants, including fun, and 20 for savings. If you’re spending more than 50 on needs or 30 on wants, you may need to adjust your expenses. To give fun its own budget line, factor fun activities into the 30 you can spend on wants and give it its own line when creating or updating your budget.
What is the 50 20 30 rule?
The 50-30-20 budget rule is a financial management tool that suggests that individuals should spend up to 50% of their after-tax income on essential needs and obligations, with the remaining half dedicated to savings and 30 for non-essential items. This rule aims to balance paying for necessities with saving for emergencies and retirement. To follow the rule, individuals can set up automatic deposits, use automatic payments, and track income changes. If spending more than 50 on needs, it may be necessary to cut down on wants or downsize lifestyles, such as downsizing to a smaller home or car, carpooling, or cooking at home.
What does the average American spend on hobbies?
A report from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated that the average American expenditure on entertainment in 2022 was $3, 458. This suggests that some individuals may have higher discretionary spending on hobbies. The mean expenditure on hobbies by an adult in the United States is approximately $255 per annum.
What do most American spend their money on?
The average American spends 12. 8 on food, 12. 12 on personal insurance and pensions, 8. 8 on healthcare, 4. 7 on entertainment, 4. 1 on other expenses, 3. 8 on cash contributions, 2. 7 on clothing and services, and 1. 8 on education. These expenses are common but are divided differently based on personal preferences and lifestyle goals. Comparing personal finances to others can help individuals understand their spending habits and make informed decisions.
It is important to consider the distribution of these funds and how it compares to personal cash management. By comparing personal finances, individuals can better understand their financial habits and make informed decisions.
How much money do you spend on a hobby?
Hobbies can improve quality of life, create social opportunities, and maintain a healthy sense of self outside professional pursuits. However, they can be expensive and difficult to justify financially. From a financial perspective, spending on hobbies can be hard to justify, as the time and cash spent on gear and travel offer little to no ROI. However, financial planning can help you plan for fun and support a hobby in a smart way. A general rule is to max out your hobby budget at 5-10% of your take-home pay, depending on your specific circumstances.
How much does the average American spend on fun?
The average American spends $3, 568 on entertainment annually, which is just over $297 per month. Entertainment can include going to the movies or attending concerts. The “Sīkdatņu politikā” refers to the collection and use of personal information, such as personal data, IP addresses, and personal information, for the purpose of advertising, marketing, and public relations. The IAB Prredzamības and the data collection system also collect and process this information, ensuring the protection and protection of personal data, such as personal information, IP addresses, and personal information.
📹 Why New Money Supports the Right
If old money supports the left, what’s the reason why new money supports the right? In this video, we delve into why “new money” …
Dave, You failed to take into account that the US federal government is the only entity that can legally issue US Dollars (USD). That creates an interesting phenomenon. The federal government must issue USDs before they can be returned to the government via taxes. So the flow of USDs is as follows: The federal government buys goods and services by issuing USDs to cover those expenses. The USDs remain in circulation until they are removed from the economy via taxes. The federal debt is the difference between the amount of USDs issued minus the USDs returned to the government via taxes. Once I really stopped to think about the implications of the above, I realized that most of what I thought I knew about the federal budget was wrong.
Do philosophy more, don’t do economics anymore. This is incredibly ideological topic, and you’re unknowingly reiterate tired neoliberal dogmas that are either wrong, or misleading or inconsequential (like debt/GDP ratio). You’re not equipped to do this if you’re not prepared to study Marxism, Keynes and MMT first.
Thank you Dave ! I think it would be great to have a series that covers the current state of the art and literature in origin of life research, … a series that starts from the building blocks, up to the oligo- and polymerization of different classes of biomolecules (and the problems to be solved), Lipid bilayers, RNA world / evolution of metabolism, autocatalysis…etc. Starting from Oparin and Urey-Miller and the evolution of the science of Abiogenesis. Best !
Japan has a debt of over 250% of GDP. As you point out, the money is owned by people, so it’s not going to a place like Mars. This means solving the debt problem can be done by just upping taxes to where the money is. The top 10% hold 90% of all stocks and bonds, and the debt is mostly in bonds so up taxes on the top 10%.
Nice explanation, but there is a risk from a shrinking economy. Most people don’t know how big a trillion dollars is. Our current debt is about $32 trillion. Here’s some easy ways to visualize how big that is. Lay 32 trillion dollar bills end-to-end, about 6 inches each. You stand at one end and a nasty old Congressman sets the other end on fire. You wouldn’t see the blaze for four and a half hours – because that’s how long it takes light to travel the distance of 32 trillion dollar bills. That’s long enough to go from Earth to the sun and back again about 17 times with enough left over for about 125 round trips to the moon. A dollar bill is about two by six inches and is about 0.0043 inches thick. The Goodyear blimp is six stories tall and half the length of a football field. If you packed the Goodyear blimp’s envelope with tightly compacted dollar bills, you would have enough to pay the interest on the national debt. For about 61 hours. All it takes to kill our economy is a downturn because our borrowing will skyrocket. But have no fear, the dollar will always have value. Why? Because the government will not accept any other form of payment for taxes. The guaranteed baseline value of the dollar comes from the value of not going to prison for not paying taxes, and from not having your property confiscated for not paying property tax. That’s the final reason to work for dollars. Other than that, have a great day! 🤪
Failed to discuss intragovernmental holdings, where a large amount of govt debt is owed to the govt itself… It’s not the same as the public debt. Also Social Security itself does not contribute directly to the debt (yet) as it has a separate trust fund. The problem is that lawmakers have raided the trust fund of around $2T, but blaming Social Security as it was conceived and deployed is like blaming an otherwise profitable business owner for being shaken down by the local mob protection racket.
Lenin summarised imperialism as follows: “Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed”.
I’d offer that the single biggest issue the U.S. has right now isn’t government spending on CoVID (or, rather, the economic impacts of CoVID), or even how much we spend on the military (though both of those certainly are issues we need to deal with). In my view, the biggest issue we have right now is in the formulation of our Entitlements Program. The period between 1946 and 1964 (those years that we often consider the birth years for the societal group we collectively call “the Baby Boomers”) saw a massive explosion in population (hence the name: Baby BOOMERS). So, in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the ratio of people paying into Social Security (there are other Entitlement Programs, but I’ll just pick on Social Security to make a point) to people retiring and withdrawing from Social Security was quite high. The burden on those paying into the system at that time was comparatively low. Later, as the ‘Boomers’ began to retire and the next generations (with vastly decreasing birth rates) became the payers into Social Security, that ratio completely flipped. So, today, the ratio of people paying into social security to those withdrawing from it has fallen dramatically, which puts much more of a financial burden on those who are paying in today. It also explains why the retirement age continues to increase – to try to put more controls on the number of people withdrawing from Social Security in the hopes of forestalling its bankrupty. We must eventually face the fact that unless something turns this trend around (that is, subsequent generations suddenly get the urge to start making more babies again) our current Entitlement System will eventually go bankrupt – it’s almost inevitable I’d further note that I’m not arguing for people to start making more babies, since also looming is that as the Earth’s population continues to grow at an exponential rate, the Earth will eventually go bankrupt, too, so to speak.
Professor, If social security is an entitlement, why is it’s official name the “Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund”. It works like every other insurance program. So, is my homeowners policy an entitlement too? How about my health insurance? Dental? Boat? Are these all actually entitlements and not insurance?
The ideal is to only spend based on taxes collected. Yes. 100% agree. Why is this the “ideal”? Because it is the ideal we CAN say that spending money that doesn’t exist is “bad” or “not good”. Just because the perception that the benefits outweigh the cons doesn’t change this ideal. Just because the short term effects are desired & the long term effects out of sight & mind to the beneficiaries doesn’t change the reality. Someone or some group benefits from the unwilling sacrifices of others. Short term debt is not good but with manageable side effects. But beyond that risk grows & controls weaken as debt increases.
Instead of doing a article specifically on the different kinds of tax revenues for the government, you should do one for all the major revenue streams for governments. In Canada, or at least in Alberta, where I’m from, the government keeps 85% of gambling profit. There are also business licensees, certifications, criminal charges, and things of that nature. I bet the government takes in a lot more money than they like to mention. Also, have you considered to do a article on lobbying?
So we have to raise taxes, that’s what I heard. And before you say anything, Yes to all your hypothetical back-sass questions because of course it’s gonna get harder. We could also decrease military spending, but I’m sure we don’t agree on anything now.. so don’t @ me bro unless you have a solution you can share without your ego holding the mic. Good Day👍🏽
Government spending in itself is what governments are supposed to do to provide services for the citizens of that government. Taxes in itself make sense to be able to afford projects like making roads and utilities. But there is a problem when the government spends too much, causing inflation which harms the poor the most becaus the rich usually have enough money to afford goods despite inflation, but the poor might not be abl to afford food or gas under high inflation. The increased government spending for bailouts can be good, or bad, depending on the circumstances. But the current US spending is too much compared to the debt Te debt has been increased by trillions in 2 years, which is just too much. The US government needs to limit its spending but they have made deals with certain companies or industries to push that industry, such as the increased subsidies for battery powered cars under Joe Biden and the cutting of all subsidied on oil and gasoline cars. Government can go into debt and its fine, but over time too much debt without the growth to offset that is not good for the economy.
that’s a very nice exposition, though it relies on the orthodox neoclassical approach to money (which is the ‘exchange’ or ‘barter theory of money’), assuming they are just a simple commodity and don’t play any ‘real part’ in how the economy works in the long run. all of those are very serious assumptions that are being critized more and more even by the leading mainstream economists, let alone various ‘skeptics’ without any position within academia
Hey Dave, I haven’t any knowledge on this topic. But my country is going through a tough financial period so I thought I’d learn something about it. Forgive me if i sound really dumb but why can’t my country simply just print more money? The dollar rate here is currently 260 PKR per dollar. So if 260 PKR means 1 dollar, why can’t we just print a billion PKRs and make a ton of dollars in exchange for it?
Sovereign debt is different than foreign debt. This is an important distinction. Also important is the fact that the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency. These two factors are important. Because most of US debt is not foreign, the US does not have to acquire foreign currency to pay it off. The US owes people something that only the US can create an unlimited amount of. There never need to be even the possibility of defaulting on that. Again, other countries that are not the creators of the worlds reserve currency and who owe money in foreign debt obligations – think Greece owing Euros – another story. The US is not Greece and it is important to understand that difference
100 percent Debt to GDP ratios are an arbitrary metric. Japan ran over 250 percent for decades with no ill effects. In fact, inflation in Japan was at zero during most of that time. This real world example flies in the face of the theory that going over 100 percent Debt to GDP ratios will necessarily cause inflation.
Calling Social Security an entitlement is twitch-inducing. Social Security holds funds in trust for account holders (citizens). Separate contributions fund Social Security, and recipients of payments are receiving a purchased benefit, not a government hand-out. “Entitlement” is a weasel word used by “budget hawks” to make recipients of benefits appear to be a drain on the economy, and promote casting already disadvantaged people into further disadvantage.
Nick, I’d like to add one major component for New Money: If you’ve become New Money and your company is so established that it’s become a monopoly or part of a cartel, then you will tend towards the left. That’s because more progressive policies and regulations create large barriers to entry for smaller companies to come in and compete with you, which will take market share away from your company. For example, Jeff Bezos of Amazon would gladly push for a $15/hr minimum wage law (or even higher), not because Bezos is so socially progressive or has such a big heart for his workers; but because it creates a very costly barrier to entry against other companies attempting to rise to the top. Amazon will consider those labor cost increases as sunk cost, and absorb them without much concern for going bankrupt. Those labor costs also become increasingly irrelevant with greater emphasis on automation and AI as they replace human labor. Moreover, with the human workforce, you may also notice that Amazon pushes workers very hard with down-to-the-second performance indicators, strict bathroom break policies, etc. That’s very revealing as to their true motives when advocating for socioeconomically progressive policies.
New money likes classic liberalism and free markets, because they know what it takes and they remember how it was before they had it. They believe it’s a right to make it of you can. Old money, when it was new (the producers who actually created the value and wealth), was the new money mentioned above. The old money (non productive) are rightfully afraid they would lose if they had to compete, which is why they support more regulations and barriers to entry. Old money loses eventually.
I think your last point describes my reason for being conservative perfectly. Growing up I’ve always been a hard worker, but I’ve watched many of my irresponsible peers party and get through social obstacles simply by being born in the right families or having some pre-established connections. Now they’re in nice white collar jobs after graduating college and they all still have the same old friends that helped them succeed. In a way I feel I’ve been rejected from their social ranks and now I secretly wish them to fail as I rise up without having the advantages they’ve had. Call me petty but I think this is just basic human nature.
Unpopular opinion, but both new and old wealth deserve respect in their own way. New wealth obviously reflects some amount of merit (aside perhaps from the random lottery winner), but old wealth, when that $ has been passed down and maintained (if not increased) over generations requires its own merit as well. It’s all too easy to have some reckless descendant squander away all that was handed to them. I say this all as just some working-class guy.
3:24 Don’t you think this take on classical liberalism is a bit too convenient? You’re forgetting subsidies to oil, corn, land expansion (e.g. wars of expansion and then government practically giving that land away), “natural monopolies” like railroads and telephones, and even the differences between agrarian and industrial societies.
I now see why my family is somewhat split with a new money/right leaning: Mom’s side is more old money I’m not sure how old, but Grandfather studied at Trinity College, Mom at Georgetown, and they assisted in my education too. I’m pretty sure those grandparents are faith and family Democrats, but not sure. They aren’t super vocal. Dad’s side has more new money. Grandfather was from an Irish family that fled the potato famine so my dad grew up working class. Saving and investing got that side of the family solidly into the upper middle class. My conditions growing up improved from working class to upper middle class within my lifetime. Politics on this side: Grandfather is a reliable Republican voter. Father doesn’t love Trump, but voted him in 2016 and plans to again this year. As for me. I have no love for redistribution and frankly nothing in common with the left. My sister will likely vote left, but even that is on social issues more than economic ones. Her college friends are immigrants from former communist nations and I doubt that’s an accident even if they all vote Democrat right now
The New money and Old money paradigm can actually be seen not only among the ultra rich but from I can tell, also with each strata of wealth below as well. From my observations of being part of the “middle class” I see these political and social differences between those who have been firmly embedded for generations in the middle class and those who have recently arrived. I think this aspect is something not really touched upon and I suspect that it plays an important role in the social issues decision making and wealth management regardless of the total sum of what their wealth is in the larger context of society.
I am having an identity crisis with politics. I generally tend to lean more liberal until I saw people taking advantage of things meant to help those in need or in general hating that I try in life. I can’t unsee it and at the same time, I wish I could help the people need the help. I would like to go with whatever is overall better for society but I can’t tell these days.
Such a great idea, such a great take on what moves society! Seeing the world through the prism of old vs. new money (wealth), really makes all things much simpler to understand, eliminating the need to burden oneself with the useless information overload, which only obfiscates reality and muddies the mind. EXCELLENT JOB, Nick!
Before I even watch the article, I want to say: We support the Right because we have something to lose (unlike when we were poor / grinding our way up) and We aren’t convinced we’re better than other people (like Old Money) Does that sound like a reasonable summation of the Left’s base? So naturally, we would lean right. Now, time to learn what Nick will share with us.
The last point you made sounds a lot like what happened in the early settlement of the US. Firstborn sons in Britain were given the land, but the younger sons had to make their own wealth. So for some, coming to America gave them a chance to become landed gentry so to speak which they wouldn’t have been able to do back home.
great summary. i think you can really further summarize and distill it to the fact that new money wants to deregulate the capitalist competitive market space in order to compete with the old money, whereas old money wants to lock everything down and make competition from newcomers impossible by supporting massive government and bureaucracy. massive government is inherently a leftwing ideology, and limited government is a rightwing ideology. so it makes perfect sense why these two factions support the policies they do at least in our capitalist economy system.
At 10:50 you scratch the surface of a very deep truth. If you do what everyone else is doing, you won’t get ahead. The only way to get ahead is to do things differently, but doing things differently carries not just financial risk, but social risk. I think most people can handle financial risk quite well. Very few can handle social risk, but being able to tolerate that risk is ultimately what determines success.
I get this on the economic level, but how come you think we’re seeing new money people like Elon Musk also supporting right wing social movements such as anti trans and pro natalist? is it because they are right wing or classical liberal on economics so they also accept conservative social causes? or are they simply more…open minded…to the scientific beliefs such as there are only two genders and a fetus has unique human DNA?
Great content! I feel like you’re one of the great thinkers coming up on YouTube. I’m happy to have gotten in fairly early. 😎👌 These topics are looking at things through a different lens that I’ve never heard explored but really explains a lot. Do you have any book suggestions related to this topic? Or any general suggestions I’m sure would be worthwhile as well. But I’d love to read more about New Money and Old Money and their corresponding shenanigans.
Great article and I love your website. Finance is not taught in until college level which is a big problem and you discuss very important foundational ideas. Like some others have mentioned if you polished up your article’s a bit I think you’d be pretty big. Not a big deal if you aren’t interested, but I’d like to see your website get bigger so more people have a chance at understanding the concepts you present because I think the lack of financial education is a key component in today’s civil and political upheaval. On another note, I’d love to see you do a article about bitcoin and your thoughts about it.
I really appreciate your analysis. Please take some public speaking course or something along those lines so that the presentation itself approaches the level of your thoughts. The ideas at play are powerful, and will go still farther if the presentation matches the fundamental quality. I look forward to your future articles.
The old money who stayed old money is less selfish because they didn’t need to be cold to earn it but are jealous of people who did. The new money had to be cold and ruthless to earn it otherwise they wouldn’t be new money. Also Trump and Elon Musk are old money that got richer. So it’s the old money that stayed old money being jealous of the old money that earned more money to become newer money.